About two days ago i watched this movie [
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/ ] and though i really liked parts of it especially that it turned out to be a clever hoax, i discovered after viewing it that i had some real issues with the street art i saw displayed in this movie. I never payed attention to the street art scene, because i was oblivious to it and even though i had noticed some of the street art memes on the internet or on friends' t-shirts or actually on the street, meaning on walls, i never thought it very intriguing. But that is because i generally do not have a very high opinion of art in general. Especially paintings, sculptures and installations come and go and never say a lot and so maybe fill the collectors' pockets, but don't have a big intellectual impact. This comes to mind:
More or less i feel that modern art is not something that requires a lot of thought or a lot of talent and craftsmanship. I especially remember this documentary[
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/ ] following the hype around a four-year-old girl, who seemed to be a painting wiz. It turned out to be hoax, but still the bitter taste remains that it was even conceivable that a four-year-old could be a sensational painter that in some meaningful way communicates with adults via painting. It is simply ridiculous, even though the prices for her paintings weren't ridiculous at all. And If you recall Warhol and the brainless repetition that made him famous, it is clear that some things in the art world are terrible, but achieve fame and repute through omnipresence. This is also true with memes and, in the case of this movie, street art. Basically these artists create a meme out of the pop-culture-hodge-podge by endless repetition until the moment of apotheosis. Then their memes are branded into the minds of millions and gain importance not through intrinsic worth or intellectual achievement but through the hive mind that is the internet and global culture.
The best examples are shown in the movie: Shepard Fairey [
http://obeygiant.com ] and banksy [
http://www.banksy.co.uk ]
Shepard Fairey explains the strategy he employed to make his OBEY-Picture famous and is unashamed to admit that it is nothing more than an inside joke.
But what really raised my ire is banksy and this is what i am mainly concerned with here:
He made his unknown identity the meme, while sticking to a very lame and watery political message in his stencils about exploitation and state control but making it seem like a guerilla enterprise by placing his paintings in the Tate and putting it in the streets. The art he produces can only gain any footing by the spots he chooses to place it. And so i could observe banksy in one scene of the movie spraying his stencils on the Westbank wall:
The intention is clear: He uses the location to make the art seem more meaningful, which clearly it isn't. The only thing meaningful is the wall and the conflict. In fact he is siphoning the political importance that this wall carries to enrich his meager talent. I also feel like he is being disrespectful to the severity of the conflict by placing something so banal and childish there. But the media bites and you can read about it everywhere. He accomplished what he wanted by shady means: He generated attention. That is the only thing he could have hoped to achieve. Nothing about this silly grafitti is actually helping both sides to rethink their positions or come to an agreement. So attention was the only reasonable goal and it was met.
I find that to be gross, inconsiderate method. He is abusing the situation, others are in and can't leave, to create something that is unimportant and unintelligible without the suffering of others and leaves it behind, taking his own life to safety.
I truly think that is shameful. It's pure profiteering.
That was the main point i wanted to make. And i think in some sense that is true with most of this street art stuff. Even though the profiteering is done with more deserving marks( europeans and americans), but it is not fundamentally different from the case i explained before.
The movie also shows that and, with the rumors that it is a hoax, fits perfectly into the long con banksy is pulling.
If you have something to add, want to talk about the movie or, even better, disagree with me, please leave a comment.
PS:
I think the TV-Series "Nathan Barley" comes to mind in light of these characters.
